Long-term macrolide therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population-based time series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Macrolides are recommended as an adjunctive treatment for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations. The objective of this study was to examine temporal trends in the provision of long-term macrolide therapy, specifically before and after publication of the landmark MACRO trial in August 2011 showing efficacy of macrolides for this indication. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series analysis using population-level health administrative data. The study cohort consisted of all Ontario residents who had COPD, were using at least 1 long-acting inhaler, and were aged 65 years and older between Apr. 1, 2004, and Mar. 31, 2018. We compared the baseline characteristics of eligible patients before and after publication of the MACRO trial. Our primary outcome was overall prevalence of long-term macrolide therapy; secondary outcomes were incidence of COPD-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits and outpatient exacerbations requiring high-dose steroids in each quarter. We performed an interrupted time series analysis to assess for changes in the incidence of macrolide prophylaxis by quarter-year over the study period. RESULTS: The rate of long-term macrolide use increased from 0.8 per 1000 people in 2004 to 13.8 per 1000 people in 2018 (in the severe COPD group, the rate increased from 1.3 to 32.3 per 1000 people). The interrupted time series analysis showed that, before 2011, the prevalence of macrolide prophylaxis increased at a rate of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.50) per 1000 people per year; after 2011, the rate of increase grew by 1.18 (95% CI 1.07-1.29) per 1000 people to 1.63 (95% CI 1.56-1.69) per 1000 people per year. The seasonal pattern of COPD-related health care visits remained stable over the study period, and there was no detectable reduction in hospitalizations or emergency department visits at the population level. INTERPRETATION: In the past decade, there has been a significant rise in the use of long-term macrolide therapy for patients with COPD. As this practice becomes increasingly common, it will be important to monitor its potential benefits on COPD exacerbations but also its potential effects on adverse events and antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".